MANILA, Philippines — If the Supreme Court (SC) reverses its decision striking down the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte as unconstitutional, Sen. Panfilo Lacson said he would press the chamber to take the case out of the archives and challenge any colleagues who may object.
The motion to archive – described by Senate Minority Leader Vicente Sotto III as essentially killing the complaint as generally interpreted in legislative practice – was originally a motion to dismiss introduced by Sen. Rodante Marcoleta.
“The difference is, (the case) can be revived by way of new motion… For example the SC reverses its decision, the Senate can already proceed (with the impeachment trial),” Lacson said yesterday in an interview with radio dzBB.
However, Lacson noted that pulling a case out of the archives requires a senator to make a motion on the floor. If another senator objects, it triggers debate and a vote – making revival uncertain even if the SC reverses itself, especially after the 19-4-1 vote to archive the case last week.
Stressing that most of the senators who voted to archive the impeachment complaint hinged their votes on respecting the SC, Lacson said he would load his arguments against those who may oppose fishing out the impeachment complaint from the archives with their own arguments cautioning the chamber against disrespecting and defying the high court.
He noted that the Senate majority would still have the final say.
‘One-year bar not violated’
Retired Supreme Court justice Adolf Azcuna said initiating four impeachment complaints on the same day does not violate the one-year bar rule in impeachment proceedings.
Citing Article XI, Section 3 Subsection 5 of the Constitution, Azcuna, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, said impeachment proceedings are barred not more than once within a year, not more than one a year.
“The four initiated complaints on the same day were initiations done once within one year. Initiations occurring ONCE WITHIN A YEAR, all on the same day, DO NOT VIOLATE SEC 3, SUBSEC 5, ART XI OF THE CONSTITUTION,” he posted on Facebook.
He said that even applying the SC’s new definition for initiating an impeachment complaint, there was no violation of the Constitution when the fourth impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte was initiated on Feb. 5.
Azcuna said the purpose of the one-year bar rule was to limit the time taken away from official duties of the House of Representatives, saying “multiple days consume more time.”
However, if multiple complaints are all dealt within one day, this only consumes one day.
With this, the “not more than once a year” rule was not violated in Duterte’s impeachment.
“The More Than Once a Year Rule Is Not Violated Here. To recap THE RULE IS – NOT MORE THAN ONCE A YEAR. The rule is NOT– NOT MORE THAN ONE A YEAR A WHOLE WHALE OF A DIFFERENCE!” he declared.
Villar defends SC
Sen. Mark Villar has explained his vote against proceeding with Duterte’s impeachment trial, emphasizing the Senate’s obligation to respect the SC’s authority as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.
“No one, including the Senate, can substitute its opinion over the Court’s in any matter concerning the Constitution,” Villar said, citing the historic Angara vs. Electoral Commission case to reinforce the high court’s constitutional role.
Villar invoked the senators’ oath of office, maintaining that disobeying the court’s ruling would trigger a constitutional crisis.
He also echoed the sentiments of Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, author of the Court’s decision, saying that the impeachment process must remain faithful to due process, even though it is inherently political. — Daphne Galvez